If the same incident occur in any of the city in Asia during the Champions Trophy, whole world would started to say that country is not safe for the tournament and may be the tournament would be finished

Leo wrote:If the same incident occur in any of the city in Asia during the Champions Trophy, whole world would started to say that country is not safe for the tournament and may be the tournament would be finished

Yes. There are 0.1% of Hindu hardliners factions that might kill you if you are caught eating cow meat in India. There are some Christian missionaries and Islamic madrassas that lure poor low caste Hindus to convert to other religions funded by west and middle east Arabs respectively are attacked by these hardliners. Other than this, Hindus are very tolerant of other religions to the point that they are the most tolerant in the world. Minority religions are protected by Indian constitution and treated as vote banks by all political parties thus enjoy more privileged status with affirmative actions than majority Hindus in India. A church or mosque could use loud speakers in India to promote their religion which are banned in west or even Muslim countries on call of religious prayers. Roads can turn into religious event blocking traffic be it for Sunday mass by Christians or Friday namaz prayers by Muslims. Hindus too participate and congratulate other religion festivals. There is no uniform civil code for all citizens as there are laws that are exclusive for other religious as special privilege to protect their religious sentiments though unconstitutional. Triple talaq divorce is banned in all Muslim countries but still allowed in India is an example. Burqa is allowed everywhere. Recently a female Muslim politician won an election in a Hindu majority area where constituents does not get to see her face as she wears full burqa 24/7. Most of the religious violence in India has its roots in Pakistan or Arab counties aiming to fully Islamize India and impose sharia law. Attempts are being made now to bring England too under sharia law by force & terror.

I quite like what I read about the Roman system. Gods from other religions were just almalgated in. They believed in their gods but believed that he gods of other religions also existed even if they didn't worship them themselves. Or that's my understanding from what I read.

My point is that many religions including Christianity extort the violent suppression of other religions. And the crusades were certainly just that. Terrorist attacks are arguably just the modern flavour of such violence.

I was citing the internet as a contributing factor as a fasciltator for the dissemination of extremism, in the same way that a road fascilitates car crashes. Human choice and the doctrines involved are obviously more significant but an inability to quash the voice of radicalisation in the online world is a thorn in the side of those who seek to combat violent extremism. It is a powerful tool for extremists to select, recruit, and influence the vulnerable in our societies.

Many lack education. So direct Internet is far cry. Whatsapp and Facebook groups on social media give instructions on cellphones. They get terror ideas from mullah in mosques. You should stop it first if anything else.

Boycs wrote:I was citing the internet as a contributing factor as a fasciltator for the dissemination of extremism, in the same way that a road fascilitates car crashes. Human choice and the doctrines involved are obviously more significant but an inability to quash the voice of radicalisation in the online world is a thorn in the side of those who seek to combat violent extremism. It is a powerful tool for extremists to select, recruit, and influence the vulnerable in our societies.

problem: terrorismreaction: ignore true cause of terrorismsolution: take away right to privacy from everyone (by monitoring the internet)

problem: more terrorismreaction: ignore true cause of terrorism solution: take away freedom of speech from everyone (by regulating the internet)

I'm not an expert on Islam but I do believe that, in its core, it is a religion of peace.But its major issue is the "live and let live" principle that it doesn't seem to believe in.Anyone who doesn't follow Islam is seen as a kaafir (a non-believer) - and Islam is not kind to these people (as far as I know).Still, many Muslims understand that this doesn't make non-believers any less humans.But it does give some an opportunity to misuse this aspect of Islam (which might have been relevant in the Prophet's time, given his enemies) even today.

Christianity might have had such content at one time - I don't know. But it has moved with the times. Today you don't see a Christian saying "Look, he's not a Christian, so he should be killed!".

That some in Islam even today use this age-old "feature" of the religion shows that it still has takers.

Hinduism doesn't have any such thing with other religions. Yes, its caste system provides discrimination but the religion doesn't exclude practitioners of other religions.

In essence, every religion has its strong and weak points.I've always looked as a religion as only a guideline to living - nothing more.We are all adults and should be in a position to discern good from evil by ourselves.Where we have doubt, religion might come in handy.That doesn't mean we should be slaves to religion.

Let's not forget that religion itself has been distorted over centuries to suit vested interests. That is how the Brahmins in the caste system managed to take on a superior position in the hierarchy because they were entrusted with education & advising the royalty.

So when religion itself has been distorted over time, when holy texts, written thousands of years ago, have been distorted in interpretation, how can anyone take them literally today? Something might have been relevant a 1000 years ago, its relevance needs to be seen in today's context.

Anyway, I've never been particularly religious - nor do I know too much about any religion. Not even Hinduism, though technically I'm a Hindu. I just use my judgment in a situation - I don't need a religious text or spiritual guru to guide me. :-)

Err. Raja, past or present Brahmins were never on superior position. In yesteryears khatriya caste ruled over everyone including Brahmins. Brahmins are often worked as advisors to kings but never kings who are at top of hierarchy. Brahmins worked on whims of elite khastriya and often died without resistance as they don't know how to hold a knife and fight if they raise voice. Today in modern India Brahmins are demonized and live at revenge end of Dalits who are more powerful economically and politically as Dalits can't fight directly with other elite rich upper classes (aka Kshatriyas) so Brahmins become easy cannon fodder for everyone. In India every caste has their interests well represented politically through reservation affirmation actions except Brahmins. Unlike other castes, they have no political groups to demand constitutional changes. unlike vysyas they can't do business. Cant rule. Can't do hard labor tasks. Either study well and get to be on top of billion competitors or perish is only option for them. I pity their plight today.

raja wrote:Christianity might have had such content at one time - I don't know. But it has moved with the times. Today you don't see a Christian saying "Look, he's not a Christian, so he should be killed!".

Never at any time. This is left wing propaganda telling you otherwise.

Going South wrote:Err. Raja, past or present Brahmins were never on superior position. In yesteryears khatriya caste ruled over everyone including Brahmins. Brahmins are often worked as advisors to kings but never kings who are at top of hierarchy. Brahmins worked on whims of elite khastriya and often died without resistance as they don't know how to hold a knife and fight if they raise voice. Today in modern India Brahmins are demonized and live at revenge end of Dalits who are more powerful economically and politically as Dalits can't fight directly with other elite rich upper classes (aka Kshatriyas) so Brahmins become easy cannon fodder for everyone. In India every caste has their interests well represented politically through reservation affirmation actions except Brahmins. Unlike other castes, they have no political groups to demand constitutional changes. unlike vysyas they can't do business. Cant rule. Can't do hard labor tasks. Either study well and get to be on top of billion competitors or perish is only option for them. I pity their plight today.

Brahmins still enjoy most cushy jobs in govt & private sector in India. Yes, it could be to do with their superior education but that usually comes with privilege. Privilege, that has been denied to Dalits for centuries. Is it then so wrong to give Dalits a chance to educate themselves now to at least have a better chance at life?

Ideally there shouldn't be a supply deficit with regard to education, but since there is, I don't see a problem with govt giving Dalits preference. Brahmins/Upper Caste, with their privilege & networks, will find a way out for themselves - the private sector will help them out. Dalits desperately need to be pulled out of their situation.

No. You are mistaken again. Nobody GAVE them those cushy jobs. There are no kingdoms now where you get appointments even though you are not worthy. In the south it's the opposite where only Dalits and minorities to get cabinet ranks as appeasement politics but never Brahmins. Look around. Brahmins always earned it by hard work. All the IAS officers you see worked their ass off, sweated in the open studying for many days on dog hours to reach that point. Have some respect.

private sector is the ONLY area Brahmins can earn a honest living as government sector is very competitive in the open market without any backing. A Brahmin need to be in top 10 among 10,000 applicants where as a Dalit can be 9999 ranked person and still get a job in government or enter prestigious educational institution is today's reality. Don't disrespect those who get to the top through hard work.

Your logic is flawed regarding Dalits being ill treated in the past so would it be "OK" to illtreat Brahmins today? What kind f logic is that? This today's Brahmin has nothing to do with what has happened centuries earlier by some of his ancestors allegedly. First of all Brahmins are not the ONLY reason for past atrocities against Dalits, though they took part in execution of draconian untouchable laws etc as ORDERED by kings, there are 10 other upper castes that combinedly did any atrocities why single out Brahmins? Just because they have no political background or economically poor you can get away with it? Why not say the same about rajputs or chowdaries or reddy castes that actually ruled the land and it's their laws not Brahmins that did atrocities over Dalits. Even today look at Bihar & UP. all atrocities done to Dalits are from other upper castes, never Brahmins. Yet, Brahmins get the blame, why? They are the easy soft target who won't fight back?

You talk like a Pakistani terrorist in UK doing bombing, raping of British girls just because a century back British soldiers ruled Pakistan and did atrocities towards Pakistanis so it's ok to take revenge today. WTF.

Saudi Arabia did not take part in the minute of silence for victims of the most recent London terror attack before the Saudis' match against Australia because it was "not in keeping with Saudi culture".

Australia defeated the Saudis, 3-2, in a thrilling World Cup qualifying match Thursday in Adelaide.

But there was confusion before kick-off when a silence to honor the eight victims of last Saturday's attack at London Bridge and Borough Market — two of whom were Australian — took place.

While Australia's players locked arms in the center circle in the traditional way, the Saudi team did not follow suit.

Instead, they took to their positions in their half of the field. Some Saudi players remained still while the minute's silence took place, while others continued warming up and reports at the ground claimed their bench failed to stand.

Football Federation Australia released a statement after the match to clarify what happened as the controversy surrounding the story grew.

The FFA revealed that the Saudis had agreed that the minute of silence could be held but that, because the tradition was not in keeping with their culture, they would not actively participate.

"The FFA sought agreement from the Asian Football Confederation and the Saudi national team to hold a minute's silence in memory of those lost in Saturday night's terror attacks in London and in particular the two Australian women," the FFA said. "Both the AFC and the Saudi team agreed that the minute of silence could be held.

"The FFA was further advised by Saudi team officials that this tradition was not in keeping with Saudi culture and they would move to their side of the field and respect our custom whilst taking their own positions on the field."